And then I read this, on Real Clear Politics.......

For all my perspective, this guy paints a 180 degree view on what Obama has done Re: race.

On the one hand it gives me a glimpse of how hard it must be to placate everyone, as a president.

This guy faults Obama for symbolism, yet, what is a boycott of anything if not symbolism?

Honestly, will we ever say lets all rise to a higher standard together, and stop with excuses and finger pointing?

Will we ever realize MLK dream of judging by the contents of our heart and not the color of our skins?

The article:  

I watched President Obama’s last State of the Union address with the same mix of awe and frustration that has defined my relationship to his presidency. He’s the first president I ever cast a vote for, and the history of the moment has never escaped me. I grew up believing there would never be a black president of the United States. Not only was I proven wrong, but it happened when I was just barely old enough to legally buy liquor, melting away some of the cynicism that had shaped my political identity up to that point. The country had changed. We made progress. President Obama is a symbol of that progress.


My frustration with Obama’s State of the Union, and the last seven years of his presidency, was recognizing that progress is painfully inadequate and symbols are disappointing. Obama did what he does best: He told a story of the America in which the country is always becoming better. “We made change work for us,” he said, “always extending America’s promise outward, to the next frontier, to more people.”

“In fact, it’s that spirit that made the progress of these past seven years possible,” Obama continued. “It’s how we recovered from the worst economic crisis in generations. It’s how we reformed our health care system, and reinvented our energy sector; how we delivered more care and benefits to our troops and veterans, and how we secured the freedom in every state to marry the person we love.” Some of these accomplishments are undeniably good (though the reinvention of our energy sector is more aspirational than actual). There’s a real record of achievement that the Obama administration can be proud of. But there’s also a real record of mass deportation, drone strikes, and the placating of big banks. The embrace of certain immoral positions that ensure the continuance of the empire is a prerequisite for being an American president, and it’s something Obama’s symbolism could never overcome.

Because symbols, as powerful as they can be in some respects, are largely a distraction. They allow us to pretend things are better than they are, that we aren’t measuring progress against the our ideas of fascistic catastrophe, as opposed to a noble vision of freedom, justice, and equality. Symbols are seductive. President Obama perhaps even more than usual, because his symbolism as the first black president made the country even more unwilling to deal with its legacy of racism, having satisfied itself with the progress made by electing Obama. Even as we lived the backlash of the Tea Party, the birthers, and Donald Trump’s racism, we could pretend it wasn’t as meaningful as having made the big leap in electing a black man to the office of president.

I can’t help but sometimes look at President Obama and be struck that he’s seemed to keep his humanity intact.
None of this has anything to do with Obama himself. Any black person who entered this office at this time would have produced a similar effect. What’s frustrating about Obama is he has more often than not acted as though he, too, believes his symbolism is enough, as if his election healed America’s most significant racial wound and there wasn’t much left for the country to address. Those who argue for the power of symbolic politics often say that a political leader who represents a marginalized community is more likely to prioritize their needs, but the Obama presidency produced more rhetoric about rising tides lifting all boats than redress around specific racist injury. We were told this would be more effective. We needed a movement to wake us up from that delusion.

Except you would hardly have known there was a movement challenging white supremacy happening in the streets from Obama’s State of the Union address. For him, it was the beginning of the end—a retrospective on what he’s accomplished and a vision for where he would like to see the country to go when he’s out of office. Nowhere in that vision was an articulation of how the United States can uproot racism. For all of the talk about how there’s nothing at stake for him anymore, and how he’s able to speak more freely about things that would have been political liabilities four and eight years ago, Obama didn’t seem to feel free to talk about the most consequential political movement happening in the country right now. Rather, he appeared uninterested. It’s true that he’s spoken more openly about racism in the public sphere as of late, but Marc Maron’s WTF podcast is a different venue than that State of the Union speech, in reach and prestige. To fail to elevate the discourse happening around racism and white supremacy right now to the level of importance implied in the State of the Union—the last one he will deliver—says something of how he regards it. Symbols will always disappoint.

Obama is a complicated symbol, though, because he is such an impressive man on his own merits. For all my political disagreements with him, for all the blatantly oppressive actions he has taken as president of this country, I can’t help but sometimes look at him and be struck that he’s seemed to keep his humanity intact. He is still a charismatic figure that’s able to win people over with intelligence and humor. And it’s really crappity smacking cool to have a president that knows who Kendrick Lamar is, let alone is on the right side of history in recognizing that Lamar is better than Drake. Less cool is having a president that thinks, as Obama said last Tuesday night, that “the protester determined to prove that justice matters” and “the young cop walking the beat” are a part of the same dream, or that “see[ing] ourselves not, first and foremost, as black or white, or Asian or Latino, not as gay or straight, immigrant or native born, not as Democrat or Republican, but as Americans first, bound by a common creed,” is an admirable goal and not a form of patriotism that welcomes us all to take uncritical pride in a history of racism, sexism, homophobia, imperialism, and economic exploitation.

But that’s symbolism. That’s progress. That’s what we’re content with settling for time and again. The kind of change we need for this to be different won’t start at the presidential level. The Obama presidency is proof enough. To get beyond progress, to create the kind of transformational change we need, we have to start by questioning the very core of what has built the American identity.

It’s clear we haven’t done this as we prepare ourselves to have the same conversation about a potential Hillary Clinton presidency. In the event she wins the Democratic nomination and eventually the presidency, her election would signal progress—that’s part of the reason Planned Parenthood broke with tradition to endorse her candidacy during the primary. But she will carry with her the hopes of symbolism her politics will not be able to live up to. She will, as Obama has, as every president does, disappoint on a number of fronts, but her ascendance to the position of president will still be lauded as progress. What we’ll need to realize is that progress simply isn’t enough, and the type of radical change that will actually ensure freedom, equality, and justice for all will not come through investing ourselves in the symbolism of the American presidency.        

As I stated I had hope by showing I could vote for him that it would give testimony against those who say white folk won't vote for him because of his race.
But in hindsight, tho it was not my intentions, I did use race as a factor.

The listed article is just the flip side to my reasoning, but as you state, he is between a rock and a hard spot.
Which I believe highlights the faulty reasoning in thinking we can use race, gender, etc, to level the playing field, as it will always rock one way or the other in trying to strike that balance.....
And in the end we waste more energy on good intentions than achieving results.

I believe we need to drop promoting any group/cause based on history injustices, etc, and, as silly as it sounds, promote all really as equal and without bias.

I feel Obama has done a lot to promote his race to positions where he could, and I feel he used race as a factor in such. I think he is proud of it, but I am not sure this is how you repair race issues.

I do believe once it is not politicized as a means to get votes, etc,people will naturally come to a new perception and understanding of each other, for the better of all of us.

Serowbot wrote on 01/23/16 at 10:19:36:


And when, if, the balance switches to another "group" do we just keep resetting, or, do we really try and find a lasting solution that removes "bean counting" as a way to gauge success?

Did you read the article I attached Bot?
He references symbolism, yet by his very argument and observations, they are symbol based assumptions.

First I think we all must admit freely we are in fact bias, and prejudice, none escape the basic primal code of assimilation.
Instead of attaching a "symbol" of negativity connotations, which only invite defensive exchange and moves our original "hope" of understanding one anthers "feelings" way off the radar screen.

Not many on the street level can "debate" matters intellectually without attaching emotions to the exchange/argument.
To delegate this "debate" to "spokespeople" removes the very one element that does have that capacity to achieve results, and that is intimacy, or dialogue at our most primitive level using all our senses in the presences, of each other, to reaching out, and sharing, one on one.

I think you have acknowledged the power of "not" speaking, repeating, or saying of certain words, phases, as a manner to diffuse disruptive perceptions people hold over one another, and exampled by Obama refusing to say Muslim Extremist/Terrorist.
He is by fact, trying to direct the mind thought away from a negative perception of a whole faith based on the actions of an extremely small example of some sharing some sort of justification under the umbrella of that religion.
However, we have seen this same accusation used readily to describe a zealot Christian who kills an abortion doctor, or Gay man, etc....

Bot, you are right, it is going to take time, or maybe it is beyond mans ability to ever forfeit his own self  desires for the betterment of all, I don't know.
But until we clean our own house and quit politicizing our differences and really practice tolerance, believing, diversity is NOT a threat , but an opportunity to get a really good hot dog, apple pie, at a Chinese Soul Food Mexican Restaurant.....
Then I am sad to say most will just dig in, and nothing will ever change or evolve past the present mind thoughts and beliefs.  

Serowbot wrote on 01/23/16 at 12:51:58:


Eureka....... we have struck an understanding  

I believe your testimony is exactly what I was trying to convey, we have a primal code of assimilation based on a comfort factor of familiarity that scripts our thoughts.

Poop, even oil and water has the physical attributes as us, but then we say we must co-mingle based on a superior attitude thingy......

Which, opens this natural instinct to politicizing and manipulation.

You, your friend, just admitted such, as feeling uncomfortable based on ???????

What we have been taught, or read, or more to point, propagandized.....

Bot, I bet you can readily see how organized religions has used such a tool to enact their OWN agenda, yes?

Do you think they stand alone on using such a technique?

The "scene" really has no power to effect such emotions, as it is inanimate, of and by itself.
Sure, things do happen, but that goes back to someone acting out on a preconceived notion, and then the dominoes fall, so to speak.  

Serowbot wrote on 01/23/16 at 15:33:50:


Expectations perhaps?

Doan go backsliding now darnit, we had an understanding  

Yes, it is your surroundings based on your expectations, or experience, which, has been derived at via living it, or being told, about it.

Lets say you work a 9 - 5 shift. You have for years.
You expect it to be daylight when you go to work, and come home.
You take it for granted.
You get transferred to graveyard, now its dark.
You will take time to adjust until it becomes your new norm.
Nothing has really changed, just the way you look at things, as pretty girls look better in the light, and well, ugly ones look better in the dark  

I've got a friend whose 6 2, 240 and built like a linebacker. Excop, ex MMA fighter a very intimidating looking dude., but he's also an artist, musician and Baptist preacher. What he really wants now is to play golf so I've decided to teach him and when it's not snow covered like it is now, we play.

Now, when we walk in the clubhouse together, I "feel" every eye on us. The balls aren't the only thing white on a golf course. He's use to it he says.

There's a new show on Showtime called "Billions" and the main character is of course a billionair. In one scene he says when he walks into a room, he feels everyone's eyes on him, like a woman with a perfect set of t!ts.
I'm aware blacks in America feel the same eyes on them.

so, the questions that raises is why? what does it matter? can we/should we change that? are those looks justified? do we look the same way towards anyone who is outside the norm in a given situation or do we really have an inherent prejudice towards blacks?

WebsterMark wrote on 01/24/16 at 07:06:22:


I think blacks feel a very different set of eyes on them...

More like if I were to walk into a room full of billionaires in full riding gear...
... but I can take my gear off...